The longer the Democratic primaries go on, the more we learn
about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. This is obviously a very
useful process. During the Ohio primary, for instance, we learned
that both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama want to tear up the North
American Free Trade Agreement. This was certainly startling news to
both the Mexicans and the Canadians, though it obviously played
well in Ohio where manufacturing jobs have been in decline.

Mrs. Clinton, who normally likes to take credit for her husband's
policies, is renouncing his legacy on free trade, one of the
policies Mr. Clinton did get right. In fact, NAFTA was signed by
Bill Clinton and heavily supported by Republicans. "I will say that
we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it, and we
renegotiate on terms that are favorable to all of America," she
promised voters in Ohio.

Mrs. Clinton has even called for a moratorium on all free trade
agreements (FTAs), which would jeopardize presumably not just
bilateral FTAs, but also the Doha Round of the World Trade
Organization, which would probably mean the end of the
organization. It would do huge damage to U.S.-European relations as
well as relations with developing work countries who are seeking
entry into U.S. and European markets for their products.

Mr. Obama's position, meanwhile, is not nearly as clear. After his
stating in Ohio "that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the
core labor and environmental standards," one of his economic
advisors, Professor Austan Goolsbee of the University of Chicago,
subsequently let the appalled Canadians know that Mr. Obama
actually didn't mean what he had said.

According to a memorandum written by a Canadian political and
economic affairs consular officer, Mr. Goolsbee assured them that
Mr. Obama's statements were "more reflective of political
maneuvering than policy."

It was even reported by Canadian television that an advisor to Mr.
Obama had called up the Canadian ambassador to warn him that Mr.
Obama would ratchet up his attacks on NAFTA. Mr. Obama has hotly
since denied that his campaign is speaking out of both sides of its
mouth on NAFTA.

Pandering to the voters is good old-fashioned populism, and
perhaps to be expected in an electoral campaign. But the two
Democratic candidates are playing fast and loose with one of the
biggest engines of economic growth we have: free trade.

NAFTA has been a huge boon to the United States as well as its
trading partners to the north and south. Mexico is the second
largest trading partner of the United States. Between 1993 and
2006, imports from Mexico rose from $48 billion to $216 billion,
and at the same time, exports from the United States rose from $52
billion to $156 billion. That trade represents jobs created on both
sides, which again means that the Mexicans employed in those jobs
will not have to come across the U.S. border in search of
employment.

Meanwhile Canada is the largest oil exporter to the United States.
Some Canadian officials have let it be known that renegotiating
NAFTA may not be such a bad idea in the light of $100-plus
per-barrel oil prices.

Republican candidate Sen. John McCain has lost no time pointing
out the dangers of the positions taken by his two Democratic
competitors. In Texas, he reminded a town-hall audience that Texas
has benefited hugely from exporting to both Canada and Mexico. And
beyond that, Mr. McCain said, trade and national security are
interconnected. Canada currently has 2,500 soldiers in Afghanistan,
serving along U.S. troops. Canadians, like Australians and Brits,
are the most reliable U.S. allies in times of crisis. Mr. McCain is
suggesting that if we tear up NAFTA after more than a decade,
Canadians might not feel obligated keep their end of the bargain in
Afghanistan.

Ironically, by attacking NAFTA, the two Democrats are making
common cause with some from the Buchanan wing of the Republican
Party who fear NAFTA and a putative North American Union, which the
Bush administration is said to be secretly working on. Both parties
neglect the tremendous benefits derived by Americans from
cooperation with the two neighbors of the United States, both in
trade and national security.

Helle Daleis
director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy
Studies at the Heritage Foundation.